Internet Explorer was up 0.63 points at 54.76 percent, its highest level since October 2011. Firefox was up 0.45 points to 20.44 percent, all but erasing the last six month's losses. Chrome, surprisingly, was down a whopping 1.31 points to 17.24 percent, its lowest level since September 2011.

We've asked Net Applications, the source we use for browser market share data, if it has made any change in its data collection that might account for this large Chrome drop. The company attributed this in part to the exclusion of Chrome's pre-rendering data. It estimates that 11.1 percent of all Chrome pageviews are a result of pre-rendering (where Chrome renders pages that aren't currently visible just in case the user wants to see them) and accordingly excluded this from its figures.

When it comes to mobile, Safari remains in the lead. Chrome for Android is starting to make its presence felt, picking up 1.14 percent of mobile traffic. As devices shipping with Android 4.1 and newer become more widespread, we can expect to see this number grow. After all, Android 4.1 makes Chrome the default browser rather than Android Browser. Internet Explorer is also showing small signs of growth, up 0.09 points to 0.95 percent.

November was the first full month of Windows 8's availability, with Windows 8 machines starting to show up in earnest online. Over November, 1.09 percent of Web users were using Windows 8. The stable, final version of Internet Explorer 10 is currently available only for Windows 8 (though there is a beta for Windows 7), and this has picked up 0.51 percent of the market in its first full month of availability. This discrepancy implies that just 47 percent of Windows 8 users are sticking with the built-in Internet Explorer browser, which compares poorly with the 60.0 percent of Windows users overall that use a version of Internet Explorer.

We're going to start to see if Firefox's Extended Support Release strategy is truly worthwhile in the coming months. The first ESR branch, based on Firefox 10, is getting phased out and replaced by Firefox 17 ESR. Currently 17.0.1 ESR is undergoing QA and testing, in parallel with the "production" release of 10.0.11 ESR. The next version, 17.0.2, will replace the 10 ESR series. So far there's no strong indication that Firefox 10 users are actually on ESR—update refuseniks are spread pretty evenly across several Firefox versions from version 9 to 14, when they should be concentrated on Firefox 10 if they really care about security and stability. But if we see use of Firefox 10 dry up in the next month or two, that might imply that current Firefox 10 users are in fact using ESR and migrating according to ESR timelines.

93 Reader Comments

IE10 is a significant step forward over IE9, just like IE9 was over IE8.Trouble is, that IE9 was annihilated by Chrome/Firefox in a matter of weeks, and staid consistently behind in terms of features and performance for the vast majority of his lifetime.I have a strong suspicion that the same will happen with IE10, there's no reason to think it'll happen otherwise.Then why bother? Because it is (arguably) the best browser today and it will be the best browser next week? So that I'll need to switch back in one month when it'll fall behind again? And seriously: is there anyone today that feels slowed down by the browser? Speed is great: I'm all for it, but I have used Firefox and Chrome for so many years, and I have them customized to make my browsing safe, quick and efficient: why bother?I am an IE-skeptical: after having been burned in the past, I have stayed clear and never had an issue.

I agree, but there are LOTS of people using IE9 (see the charts) who have to be on Win7. Many or most of them will migrate to IE10 in time.

Personally, I would never tell a Chrome or FireFox user to revert to IE. Anybody using them already knows enough about what they are doing to make decisions on their own.

I would tell people "stuck" in the MS/IE mode to upgrade to the best version they can get (assuming they won't try anything else, Grandma, Dumb Brother, etc.) and many will, without a doubt.

If Chrome does not fix its awful spell checking, which never works, in particular when switching between languages, we will see more users switching to IE 10 which at last has spell checker and its the same available in Office so it works pretty much very decent. This and some other bugs that Chrome still suffers almost 2 years are starting to get into users nerve. When they see an alternative they will jump back to what works.

the mobile browser stats dont make sense. there are far more android devices out there than ios, are you telling me they all use safari? or they all use "do not track" me? the numbers dont add up.

I have been offered some explanations for this here on Ars:

a) A non-trivial portion of Android phone users are masquerading their browsers as something else.b) A non-trivial portion of Android users only use their phones as featurephones++ rather than a smartphone, a much higher percentage of iOS users probably does.c) There is virtually no read Android competition in the iPod touch market.d) The iPad.

the mobile browser stats dont make sense. there are far more android devices out there than ios, are you telling me they all use safari? or they all use "do not track" me? the numbers dont add up.

I have been offered some explanations for this here on Ars:

a) A non-trivial portion of Android phone users are masquerading their browsers as something else.b) A non-trivial portion of Android users only use their phones as featurephones++ rather than a smartphone, a much higher percentage of iOS users probably does.c) There is virtually no read Android competition in the iPod touch market.d) The iPad.

I'd guess it's mostly b and c.

your guess is wrong. No competition for ipod touch, who uses that?android devices, not just phones outnumber ios devices, not just phones by 4 to 1.

the number of people changing their user agent is so statistically low as to be insignificant.

Android devices outnumber ios devices 4 to 1. Are we simply to believe that most android smartphone owners do not browse the web?

That sounds plausible. Honestly, using your phone to surf on the net sucks balls, and I am not surprised that most people use their phone for things it's good at (like having phone conversations, taking pictures, GPS and playing music), rather than things it sucks at.

I know dumb teenagers probably needs to be on Facebook 24/7, but they don't make up the whole smartphone demographic.

Browser versions reported are typically IE6, although the browser generally isn't.In China at least, as has been inferred by others, the usual browsers are allegedly IE6 due to piracy.Yes and no. In actuality, most people download windows updates fine using 360安全 or similar, and there is nothing stopping people from using newer software either - windows is free, the only downside is having to reinstall it. Most people stick with XP though, although Win7 is starting to get some traction.Mind you, Mac usage here has grown exponentially in the cities...

A decent percentage of China uses Maxthon for a number of reasons, as well as 360 Safe Browser - bundled with the free 360Safe A/V / Antimalware suite, which is extremely popular.

Suprised I don't see Maxthon or 360Safe listed as major browsers - their market share in China is high, and internet usage here per capita is also high - probably the highest in the world already, especially if one also counts mobile, so I'd expect to see that reflected in the stats.

Most probably no Chinese sites are being "logged", so you're missing out on a huge market segment.

Not as long as 1 billion people in China are using it. (Okay, a slight exageration...maybe 1/2 billion.)

Edit: Damn, beaten to the punch, and with the wit I meant to have.

Ha! I read the whole page too just to see if someone had already said as much.

It's long past time for MS to just remove WPA from XP so people can update to some safer stuff. Restricting security updates hasn't forced them off FCKGW, and it never will.

As a correction to this - Windows update, and its WGA restrictions for XP are both rather irrelevant in China. Most users upgrade XP using 3rd party methods (eg via the ever present 360Safe, which downloads and installs the updates for you using their local cached servers, rather than the rather crappy speed Microsoft ones).Thats assuming they're even affected by WGA. Most CD installs here are distributed pre-cracked as ghost images, and the "WGA protection" is rarely an issue from what I've seen, even on the latest OS versions.

Not as long as 1 billion people in China are using it. (Okay, a slight exageration...maybe 1/2 billion.)

Edit: Damn, beaten to the punch, and with the wit I meant to have.

Ha! I read the whole page too just to see if someone had already said as much.

It's long past time for MS to just remove WPA from XP so people can update to some safer stuff. Restricting security updates hasn't forced them off FCKGW, and it never will.

As a correction to this - Windows update, and its WGA restrictions for XP are both rather irrelevant in China. Most users upgrade XP using 3rd party methods (eg via the ever present 360Safe, which downloads and installs the updates for you using their local cached servers, rather than the rather crappy speed Microsoft ones).Thats assuming they're even affected by WGA. Most CD installs here are distributed pre-cracked as ghost images, and the "WGA protection" is rarely an issue from what I've seen, even on the latest OS versions.

It's good to be corrected. So who the hell IS using IE6? Anyone on XP can upgrade to IE8.

Thus: While I agree with many that there's no way this is accurate to the hundredth of a point, it's much more accurate that a company that does no weighting.

It is accurate but misleading. Who cares if half of China is using Windows XP / IE6. A breakdown by region would be much more informative. We'd understand better how many people that visit web sites around us are on IE10, Windows 8 etc. better.Chinese mostly visit chinese web sites. I don't care a whole lot what they are using.

Thus: While I agree with many that there's no way this is accurate to the hundredth of a point, it's much more accurate that a company that does no weighting.

It is accurate but misleading. Who cares if half of China is using Windows XP / IE6. A breakdown by region would be much more informative. We'd understand better how many people that visit web sites around us are on IE10, Windows 8 etc. better.Chinese mostly visit chinese web sites. I don't care a whole lot what they are using.

It's worldwide browser market share, which is the metric they say they're measuring, and the same metric, methodology, and numbers they've used month in and month out for as long as I've been on the site. If you're not looking for a global browser share, there are other metrics to use. By using the same numbers each time, they can actually show trends, which is important.

Complaining "these aren't the important stats" is something that at least one person complains about each month. It is equally pointless each and every time. If you don't want to discuss THESE metrics, then go discuss the ones that are germaine to what you're looking for. More often than not, it comes off as people who have sour grapes about the fact that their browser of choice hasn't "won" yet.

IE10 is a significant step forward over IE9, just like IE9 was over IE8.Trouble is, that IE9 was annihilated by Chrome/Firefox in a matter of weeks, and staid consistently behind in terms of features and performance for the vast majority of his lifetime.I have a strong suspicion that the same will happen with IE10, there's no reason to think it'll happen otherwise.Then why bother? Because it is (arguably) the best browser today and it will be the best browser next week? So that I'll need to switch back in one month when it'll fall behind again? .

Really? You switch away from your current browser every time it falls behind in some nebulous metric?

Personally, I would never tell a Chrome or FireFox user to revert to IE. Anybody using them already knows enough about what they are doing to make decisions on their own.

I would tell people "stuck" in the MS/IE mode to upgrade to the best version they can get (assuming they won't try anything else, Grandma, Dumb Brother, etc.) and many will, without a doubt.

For me, if someone asks me what browser to use, I tell them "the latest version of Internet Explorer". I don't recommend Firefox or Chrome or Opera unless they specifically ask me for alternatives, and I say that as someone who's been using Netscape/Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox almost exclusively for the past 15 years.

Two observations about the article: Mozilla needs to start a serious campaign to get more people to upgrade faster, the people still running FF15 or less is atrocious, and every one of them (excluding the people on the FF10ESR) have zero security update support.

At this point, we have to accept that IE6 is never going to completely go away until the people still running XP either slowly die off or the world's governments band together to banish it from the internet under the penalty of death.

Browser versions reported are typically IE6, although the browser generally isn't.In China at least, as has been inferred by others, the usual browsers are allegedly IE6 due to piracy.Yes and no. In actuality, most people download windows updates fine using 360安全 or similar, and there is nothing stopping people from using newer software either - windows is free, the only downside is having to reinstall it. Most people stick with XP though, although Win7 is starting to get some traction.Mind you, Mac usage here has grown exponentially in the cities...

A decent percentage of China uses Maxthon for a number of reasons, as well as 360 Safe Browser - bundled with the free 360Safe A/V / Antimalware suite, which is extremely popular.

Suprised I don't see Maxthon or 360Safe listed as major browsers - their market share in China is high, and internet usage here per capita is also high - probably the highest in the world already, especially if one also counts mobile, so I'd expect to see that reflected in the stats.

Most probably no Chinese sites are being "logged", so you're missing out on a huge market segment.

IE10 is actually a very good browser. Faster than chrome in gpu acceleration. IE10 then Firefox, then Chrome. Thats about how i gauged their performance on various sites. Chrome is kind of embarrassing now. Its a mess.

I got the impression that there was indeed some data trimming and processing going on the raw data used for this article. How do they "estimate" that 11.1% of Chrome page views need to be excluded (I don't object to excluding them but I would like to see how they come up with the 11.1% figure)?

I would bet that the reason this number looks so precise is that it isn't actually a percentage but rather a fraction, 1/9th.

Quote:

In the best case, the error margin could be close to 0. Remember that a random representative sample of ~300 people is enough to get to 1% or so accuracy in any population size, even for example the US population in election season. Net Applications samples 40,000 websites, and many millions of users, so the error margin could be far lower than that.

Uh, no? A sample size of 300 will have about a 6% margin of error; a sample size of 1000 has about a 3% margin of error. Didn't you watch the polls at all during election season?

Sampling 40,000 websites SOUNDS impressive, but it doesn't necessarily actually give you more accurate data, if there is some sort of bias in which websites you sample. Indeed, it would be interesting to know what the statistics for Google, Bing, and Facebook look like, as it may actually be more representative to just sample the websites that essentially everyone uses, rather than the websites everyone uses and then 39,900 that are much more random.

I will note that the more websites match up with one another in terms of browser usage, the more reliable you can feel that the data is. The only really unfortunate thing is that Bing and Google probably don't - I'd bet Bing has a disproportionate amount of IE users and Google a disproportionate amount of Chrome users. But if, say, Amazon, Wikipedia, and Facebook all matched up, I'd imagine that would be a pretty strong indication that the numbers are pretty close to correct.

In theory 40,000 websites is going to give you an error bar of +- about 0.5%, but the problem is that all websites are not created equal in terms of user traffic. It also depends on the reliability of the data sources itself.

Quote:

among other things, they claim to count only unique visitors, which they then weight by years old CIA population counts and percentage of online users per country. The fact that the most populous countries are the ones with the biggest recent changes in online usage, and the changing face of tech all over the world in the last few years, and the fact that the CIA explicitly says their numbers are only rough estimates couldn't possibly affect those hundredths of a percentage, could it?

Which probably means their data is probably only good to one or two decimal places. Really, all the data really tells us is:

1) IE is king of desktops2) Firefox and Chrome are roughly equal.3) Safari is way behind those.4) Opera is ahead of everything else put together, but itself is almost irrelevant.5) Everything else is irrelevant.

and

1) Safari is king of mobile browsers.2) Android is second.3) Opera is third.4) Everything else is irrelevant.

On what basis? On the basis of a website which claims to measure usage to two decimal places? Both of these sets of stats are incredibly dubious, especially given that they wildly disagree with one another.

Stat counter is entirely reliant on people choosing to install their code on their website, and from what I can tell, the same is true of Net Marketshare as well.

Really, I'd be most interested in who, exactly, is being counted here.

Google, Bing, Wikipedia, Facebook, ect. make up a huge percentage of traffic, and if they don't use these companies to collect data, really, I'm not sure if their numbers are worth anything at all.

Quote:

Thus: While I agree with many that there's no way this is accurate to the hundredth of a point, it's much more accurate that a company that does no weighting.

Not necessarily. Weighting carries the danger of allowing you to insert your preconceptions into the data, which can easily result in you distorting your data badly.

Look at the last presidential cycle; those polls that weighted democrats and republicans were way off. Why? Because there are more Democrats than Republicans in the US. If you assume that they are equal in number, then your adjustments actually make you -more wrong- than your raw data.

If you have a good sampling methodology, you don't have to do this.

Quote:

That sounds plausible. Honestly, using your phone to surf on the net sucks balls, and I am not surprised that most people use their phone for things it's good at (like having phone conversations, taking pictures, GPS and playing music), rather than things it sucks at.

The problem is, if we assume that android has a 4:1 margin in terms of marketshare, these numbers indicate that Apple has a 3:1 margin in terms of usage.

Or to put it simple: You would have to assume that people using iDevices are 12 times more likely to check the internet on their mobile device than Android users.

The problem is, if we assume that android has a 4:1 margin in terms of marketshare, these numbers indicate that Apple has a 3:1 margin in terms of usage.

Or to put it simple: You would have to assume that people using iDevices are 12 times more likely to check the internet on their mobile device than Android users.

That's pretty unlikely.

The reasoning seems to be that most people buy iPhones because they want a smartphone that can surf the internet and use it for such, while most people who buy Android phones do so because they were cheap, not because they enjoy mobile internet surfing. As we see more high-end, desirable, and capable Android phones sell in in higher numbers, like the Samsung GSIII, we'll probably see those internet usage numbers swap.

I think the problem with IE 10 is the changes in how IE 10 works in Windows 8. But its hard to tell yet because Windows 8 itself is not doing so great. I can't stand IE 9 much less IE 10 in terms of web compatibility and usability. Actually I take that back as IE 9 works well with no plug ins. Its when you add plug ins that things start going wrong. I think a lot of users have accepted that right now Microsoft is NOT listening to its customers.

I'm surprised there's not more mobile chrome. I wouldn't dream of suffering through safari on any of my iOS devices now that I have a choice.

What kind of bullshit is this? What is wrong with Safari on iOS?

Just a troll. Chrome on iOS uses the underlying rendering engine that Safari uses without access to the faster JS engine and all. So you are using a /slower/ browser, in practice, just to say "I'm using Chrome!111" and to have chrome bookmark syncing.

IE10 is a significant step forward over IE9, just like IE9 was over IE8.Trouble is, that IE9 was annihilated by Chrome/Firefox in a matter of weeks, and staid consistently behind in terms of features and performance for the vast majority of his lifetime.I have a strong suspicion that the same will happen with IE10, there's no reason to think it'll happen otherwise.Then why bother? Because it is (arguably) the best browser today and it will be the best browser next week? So that I'll need to switch back in one month when it'll fall behind again? And seriously: is there anyone today that feels slowed down by the browser? Speed is great: I'm all for it, but I have used Firefox and Chrome for so many years, and I have them customized to make my browsing safe, quick and efficient: why bother?I am an IE-skeptical: after having been burned in the past, I have stayed clear and never had an issue.

I agree, but there are LOTS of people using IE9 (see the charts) who have to be on Win7. Many or most of them will migrate to IE10 in time.

Personally, I would never tell a Chrome or FireFox user to revert to IE. Anybody using them already knows enough about what they are doing to make decisions on their own.

I would tell people "stuck" in the MS/IE mode to upgrade to the best version they can get (assuming they won't try anything else, Grandma, Dumb Brother, etc.) and many will, without a doubt.

Lot of users don't even consider a alternate browser other then IE. I stop pushing anyone towards anything. My Wife was totally a IE user until her work required Firefox. Even then she went back and forth. Since all browsers are free to try. I would say just use the one you like. I still use IE 9 but doubt I will embrace IE 10 anytime soon. Google Chrome has become my go to browser for Flash content and general web surfing. I tend to use IE 9 for more secure transaction as I have uninstalled all plugins. So I believe it to be a bit more secure.

On Steam the other day, I noticed they had a survey function that polled / showed what apps folks have on their computers and/or use. I scrolled on down the list, and noticed IE showed up close to the bottom. I thought Firefox would be even lower ... kept scrolling down, and couldn't find it. Scrolled back up...it was near the top of the list. I guess gamers are big Firefox proponents.

Lot of users don't even consider a alternate browser other then IE. I stop pushing anyone towards anything. My Wife was totally a IE user until her work required Firefox. Even then she went back and forth. Since all browsers are free to try. I would say just use the one you like. I still use IE 9 but doubt I will embrace IE 10 anytime soon. Google Chrome has become my go to browser for Flash content and general web surfing. I tend to use IE 9 for more secure transaction as I have uninstalled all plugins. So I believe it to be a bit more secure.

I agree with you completely. I do tell those using IE to get the latest stable version their OS supports for security reasons, etc. (as opposed to whatever old version they're running).

Not as long as 1 billion people in China are using it. (Okay, a slight exageration...maybe 1/2 billion.)

Edit: Damn, beaten to the punch, and with the wit I meant to have.

Ha! I read the whole page too just to see if someone had already said as much.

It's long past time for MS to just remove WPA from XP so people can update to some safer stuff. Restricting security updates hasn't forced them off FCKGW, and it never will.

Microsoft doesn't restrict security updates from pirated installs. I think this misconception stops pirates from updating their machines and therefore puts them and others at risk. Microsoft will give you security updates. They won't give you new software though.

Not as long as 1 billion people in China are using it. (Okay, a slight exageration...maybe 1/2 billion.)

Edit: Damn, beaten to the punch, and with the wit I meant to have.

Ha! I read the whole page too just to see if someone had already said as much.

It's long past time for MS to just remove WPA from XP so people can update to some safer stuff. Restricting security updates hasn't forced them off FCKGW, and it never will.

Microsoft doesn't restrict security updates from pirated installs. I think this misconception stops pirates from updating their machines and therefore puts them and others at risk. Microsoft will give you security updates. They won't give you new software though.

I think Windows Update will automatically install and run the latest WGA check, which if it fails will activate the nag popups and reboot your PC every two hours. It's been a long time since I messed with XP though, so that might be wrong.

Since Firefox for Android has become so damn good I've stopped using the stock browser and chrome. But does FF for Android just show up in the non-mobile statistics or is it correctly recognized as mobile?

Since Firefox for Android has become so damn good I've stopped using the stock browser and chrome. But does FF for Android just show up in the non-mobile statistics or is it correctly recognized as mobile?

Whether any of these browser trackers (I hesitate to say browser statistics trackers) take note of that or not is something you'd have to find out from them directly, I presume. If they don't, the question is whether to put that down to laziness or a vanishingly small number of actual users.

I think it'll be like windows 3.11, and you'll find installs of it in a decade or more hanging out there running sandboxed in corporate networks, hooked up to ancient web apps that have no vendor to maintain them.

My web app still gets deployed on IE6. We have a major corporation using it across all their retail points (isolated network, hence no security risk). Suffice it to say they had been aware of the need to upgrade for years, but so much infrastructure had been built around IE6 that upgrading was hugely expensive. But in a year they'll have phased out the last of the IE6 installs and moved to IE8, so I'm hoping now that will be the last corporate customer on IE 6. Next target: IE7.

Not as long as 1 billion people in China are using it. (Okay, a slight exageration...maybe 1/2 billion.)

Edit: Damn, beaten to the punch, and with the wit I meant to have.

Ha! I read the whole page too just to see if someone had already said as much.

It's long past time for MS to just remove WPA from XP so people can update to some safer stuff. Restricting security updates hasn't forced them off FCKGW, and it never will.

Microsoft doesn't restrict security updates from pirated installs. I think this misconception stops pirates from updating their machines and therefore puts them and others at risk. Microsoft will give you security updates. They won't give you new software though.

I think Windows Update will automatically install and run the latest WGA check, which if it fails will activate the nag popups and reboot your PC every two hours. It's been a long time since I messed with XP though, so that might be wrong.

I think they changed that.

I just reinstalled Win7 this weekend, and when dumping all the updates onto the machine I noticed one of the "necessary" updates was unchecked. It didn't specifically say it was WGA, but it did say its purpose was to check your machine to see if you got scammed into a pirated or unofficial copy of Windows.

I remember I got nailed on Vista with something like that even though I was using an official copy. I guess a lot of folks got upset over false positives, so MS decided better safe than sorry and not force folks to run that "update".

the mobile browser stats dont make sense. there are far more android devices out there than ios, are you telling me they all use safari? or they all use "do not track" me? the numbers dont add up.

People browse on "tablets" far more than they do on phones, and the great majority of tablets are iPads. Even amonst tablets, iPad users apparently browse more on average than Android tablet users ... maybe because a lot of Android tablets are things like the Kindle Fire, with usage skewed towards books more than web-sites.